Support

A cookie is a piece of data stored by your browser or device that helps websites like this one recognize return visitors. We use cookies to give you the best experience on BNA.com. Some cookies are also necessary for the technical operation of our website. If you continue browsing, you agree to this site’s use of cookies.

Marketing Services

Bloomberg Next marketing services allow clients to elevate their brands and extend their reach through our established and trusted expertise, enhanced with engaging event production, appealing design, and compelling messaging.

Treaty Overrides Where the Code’s Legislative History Is Silent

Trust Bloomberg Tax's Premier International Tax offering for the news and guidance to navigate the complex tax treaty networks and business regulations.

By Thomas S. Bissell, CPA
Celebration, Florida

It is clear that Congress has long had the ability to enact a statute that has the
effect of abrogating — and thus rendering null and void for all U.S. tax purposes
— part or all of the provisions of a tax treaty that has at some time in the past
been duly approved by the U.S. Senate and ratified, and which would remain fully in
effect in the absence of the new statute. Although Congress was historically reluctant
to do this, in recent decades it has felt less constrained to enact statutes that
have this effect. Symptomatic of this trend was the enactment in 1988 of
§7852(d)(1)
(as part of the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 (TAMRA), which provides,
“For purposes of determining the relationship between a provision of a treaty and
any law of the United States affecting revenue, neither the treaty nor the law shall
have preferential status by reason of its being a treaty or law.”

It does not appear that the enactment of
§7852(d)(1)
actually changed what might be called the “common law” in this area, because Congress
had previously enacted new rules under the 1954 Code that had the effect of nullifying
certain tax treaty provisions.
The 1954 Code itself had provided that the provisions of all tax treaties that were
in effect as of August 16, 1954, were to prevail over any conflicting statutes, but
only those that were already in effect on that date. After 1954 and prior to the
enactment of
§7852(d)(1)
, Congress did indeed enact statutes that specifically abrogated any contrary provisions
in pre-existing tax treaties — most notably with the enactment of the Foreign Investment
in Real Property Tax Act (FIRPTA)
rules in 1980. On other occasions, Congress specifically declared that it was aware
of its power to nullify certain tax treaty provisions, but stated that it chose not
to do so — most notably in the Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966 (FITA). Indeed,
TAMRA itself contained a separate provision stating that when Congress enacted a “minimum
tax” (AMT) limitation to the individual foreign tax credit two years earlier, it had
intended to override all inconsistent tax treaties.
Thus, the enactment of
§7852(d)(1)
in 1988 was apparently meant to clarify to both taxpayers and to the courts that
Congress did indeed have the power to abrogate a pre-existing tax treaty, and would
continue on occasion to exercise that power.
This seems clear from the very detailed discussion of the
§7852(d)(1)
language in the 1988 Senate Finance Committee Report on Pub. L. No. 100-647.

Although it is clear that Congress may nullify — i.e., “override” — an existing tax treaty, the 1988 legislative history of
§7852(d)(1)
makes clear that if a newly enacted statute conflicts with an existing treaty, and
if the enacting legislation itself does not specifically say which is to prevail (as
was done, for example, in both the FIRPTA and the FITA legislation), then the legislative
history (primarily the related committee reports) must be examined in order to determine
which is to prevail. In some situations the legislative history may be extensive
and detailed, as was the case when Congress expanded the “anti-expatriation”
rules of
§877
in 1996, or it may be extremely brief, as occurred when Congress repealed the per-country
foreign tax credit limitation in 1976. Even if there is no language in the enacting
legislation on how to resolve a treaty conflict, and no language in the legislative
history on this subject, Congress may express its intention “retroactively” by commenting
on the earlier legislation when it writes the committee reports that accompany the
enactment of a subsequent law on a related subject. For example, when Congress enacted
§901(f)
and
§907
in 1975 to restrict the foreign tax credits available to certain oil and gas companies,
neither the enabling legislation nor the committee reports mentioned the issue of
a treaty override, but when Congress repealed the per-country foreign tax credit limitation
a year later, the committee reports stated (and then even only impliedly) that the
earlier 1975 legislation had been intended to override all tax treaties. The IRS
cited the 1976 committee reports in Rev. Rul. 80-223 in holding that the 1975 law had indeed overridden all tax treaties.

Thus, the intent of
§7852(d)(1)
seems to be to give considerable deference to any comments, however brief, that may
appear in the legislative history of a new statute that conflicts with an existing
treaty, or even in the legislative history of a subsequent statute that covers a similar
subject. What is not at all clear, however, is which prevails where the legislative
history is totally silent on the question. Although the 1988 legislative history
does not discuss this issue in detail, the 1988 Senate Finance Committee Report makes
clear that silence should not be construed to mean that no override has occurred with
respect to inconsistent tax treaties.
In part, the Committee was concerned with the following identical language that the
IRS had included eight years earlier in both Rev. Rul. 80-223 (cited above) and in Rev. Rul. 80-201: “The courts do not favor repudiation of an earlier treaty by implication and require
clear indications that Congress, in enacting subsequent inconsistent legislation,
meant to supersede the earlier treaty.”
In disagreeing with this language, the Committee stated specifically that “it would
be erroneous to assert that the absence of legislative history mentioning a treaty
was sufficient” to conclude whether or not a new statute had the effect of overriding
an existing treaty.
Thus, the Committee stated that although a treaty override would definitely occur
if either the statute or the legislative history specifically so stated, a treaty
override could nevertheless occur even if the statute and the legislative history
were both silent on the question. The Committee Report does mention a “residual later-in-time
rule,” but at the same time it gives several examples of statutes (both hypothetical
and actual) where a treaty override either would or would not occur in the absence
of any mention of treaties in either the statute or in the legislative history. Subsequently,
the Conference Committee Report on
§7852(d)(1)
adopted the same position in stating that if the legislative history of the statute
is silent on the question, then “taxpayers and the IRS can look beyond the Code to
determine the proper tax treatment of the item of income in question.”

Based on the legislative history of
§7852(d)(1)
itself, therefore, it seems clear that if a conflict exists between a treaty and
a later-enacted statute, and if the statute and its legislative history are both silent
on the override issue, there may be a slight presumption in favor of an override under
a “later-in-time rule,”
but nevertheless all other possibly relevant provisions of other treaties, statutes,
court decisions, statements by individuals in the legislative and executive branches,
and indeed statements by outside commentators, should be considered. Such an approach
clearly seems appropriate, especially because statutes that conflict with pre-existing
treaties are often enacted by Congress without time for the responsible committees
to consider the potential conflicts.

Since the enactment of
§7852(d)(1)
in 1988, it does not appear that the IRS or the courts have ruled on the “silence”
question. The question is nevertheless important. Since 2004, the author is aware
of at least three instances in which Congress has enacted statutes that conflict with
pre-existing treaty provisions, and where both the statute and the legislative history
are silent. In 2004, Congress enacted a new excise tax under
§4985
that may be imposed on nonresident alien “insiders” of an expatriating U.S. corporation. In 2008, Congress enacted a new transfer tax that may be imposed under
§2801
on U.S. citizens and residents who receives gifts or bequests from a so-called “covered
expatriate” (within the meaning of
§877A
). And in 2010, Congress enacted the new 3.8% “net investment income tax” (NIIT),
which can apply to U.S. citizens and resident aliens with respect to foreign-source
income but without the allowance of a statutory foreign tax credit for foreign income
tax on the same income. All three of these provisions conflict with numerous pre-existing tax treaties, yet
both the statute and the legislative history are silent on this issue. Doubtless
there have been other instances since the enactment of
§7852(d)(1)
in 1988 in which a newly enacted statute conflicted with pre-existing treaties, and
where Congress gave no hint on how to resolve the conflict.

Because of the importance of this issue, a subsequent commentary will explore how
the Code/treaty conflict might be resolved in the three instances just cited. In
the meantime, the author welcomes any additional citations that readers might provide
on other instances in which this issue has arisen since 1988.

All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to books@bna.com.

Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)

Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).

This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to research@bna.com.

Put me on standing order

Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)